The Tennessee Court of Appeals decided a
recent interesting case involving a shooting that occurred just outside of the
property of a youth outreach ministry.The Jerterrius Marshawn
Akridge v. Fathom, Inc., No. 2014-00711-COA-R9-CV, 2015 WL 97946 (Tenn. 2015) decision dealt with
a shooting that occurred close to, but clearly outside of the property of the
defendant.The plaintiffs alleged they
were attending a public music event at Club Fathom.Club Fathom provides outreach to at-risk
youth, including gang members.At the
event the plaintiffs assert certain individuals wore gang colors and an
altercation erupted inside the building.The defendant’s security personnel forced all patrons to leave the
building and the premises.The
plaintiffs were subsequently caught in a shooting which occurred off the
premises.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant had a
history of violence and numerous incidents of crime and public disorder on
their property.Further, the plaintiffs
claim the defendant had a duty to the plaintiffs as invitees to protect them
and to operate the club in a reasonably safe manner.Plaintiffs largely relied upon the seminal
case on this issue, McClung v. Delta
Square Ltd. Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996) (this case discusses
the duty of a premises owner to protect their customers when there is knowledge
of crimes occurring on and around their property)

The question in the Akridge case
was whether the defendants owed any duty of care to the plaintiffs when they
were not on the defendant’s property at the time of the shooting.The court noted that generally there is no
duty to control the conduct of a third party to prevent harm unless:

(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the
third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's
conduct, or

The court found that in Akridge there
was no special relationship with a third party tort-feasor that would force a
duty upon the defendants to control that party’s conduct.As a result, the only basis for potential
liability would be a special relationship between the defendants and the
plaintiffs.Tennessee case law has
previously concluded that such a special relationship may exist between the
possessor of a premises that is open to the public and the individuals they
invite onto the premises. (See McClung- previously discussed
above) However, in the Akridge case,
the plaintiffs had already left the defendant’s premises by the time of the
actual shooting.This is different from
what occurred in McClung.The question, therefore, was whether the duty
to the plaintiffs still continued after the plaintiffs had exited the defendant’s
premises.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that “the only duty owed by
these Defendants was to protect business patrons from harm, a duty which
would exist while the patrons were on the business premises.Since it is undisputed that Plaintiffs were
no longer on the business premises at the time of the tortious act, the trial
court erred in determining that Defendants owed them a duty of care.”Akridge at 6.The plaintiffs attempted to argue that
because the defendants forced everybody off their property at the time of the
initial altercation, that this actually caused the incident.However, the court decided to provide a bright
line rule that if the plaintiffs are no longer on a business owners premises,
then there is no longer a duty to protect them from harm at that point.

This is an important Tennessee Court of
Appeals decision.This is the right
decision.Otherwise, where do you draw
the line?How far must someone be off
your property for the duty to cease?For
how long?Under what circumstances?It would create a myriad of difficulties to
apply any rule other than the rule identified in this case.Obviously even under this rule, there can
still be fact specific inquiries needed to determine whether there is any duty
to plaintiffs that are invited onto a premises owner’s property.However, ultimately, if those individuals
leave the premises, then there is no longer any duty to provide for their
safety absent some other special duty under Tennessee law.

Follow me on Twitter at @jasonaleefor updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.

Very well written, as usual. Your conclusion that it was the right decision seems logical and in accordance with the facts presented. Indeed, where would one draw the line? The Court of Appeals has added clarity to this subject.